Agenda - Charter Commission - 07/10/1997

Home

MUNICIPALITIES general city or villkge election occurring in the city or village within six months after the delivery of such draft, then the council or other governing body of t~e city or village shall cause the proposed charter to be submitted at a special election to be held within 90 days after the delivery of such draft. The council or other governing body may calIa special election for that purpose only at any time. If the election is held at the same time with the generaI election, the voting places and election officers shall be the same for both elections. * * *" Section 410.10 was originally Laws 1899, Chapter 351, Section 4. It has since been amended from time to time but is now in the form above quoted. Laws 1899, Chapter 351, Section 4, as amended by Laws 1901, Chapter 323, providing for the submission of a proposed new charter at a general or .special election was held to be constitutional in State ex tel. Nichols v. Kiewel, 86 Minn. 136. The relator's contention was that as the constitution provides for the submission to the voters of a proposed char~er "at the next election" after the submission of a proposed charter amendment ~o the chief magistrate of a city, the only election at which a proposed charter could be voted upon was the next regular municipal election, and that the words "at the next election thereafter" of the Constitution could not be given a con- struction permitting special elections. The Supreme Court in that case said: "The question is not free from doubt, but we are of the opinion that the constitutional mandate in question was intended, not to limit-the power of the legislature to regulate the manner of submitting the charter, but to speed its submission * * *" As Section 410.10 is a continuation of Laws 1899, Chapter 351, Section 4, as modified by amendments for the purpose of regulating the manner of · submitting the proposed charter, and is also by Section 410.12 ~nade appli- cable to proposed charter amendments, we are justified in. assuming that the Supreme Court would uphold the constitutionality of Section 410.10 for the same reasons that it held Laws 1899, Chapter 351, Section 4, as amended, constitutional in 1902. The answer to your question must, therefore, depend upon the interpre- tation given the provisions of Section 410.10. There are severaI cases, such as State ex tel. Lowev. BarIow, 129 Minn. 181; State ex tel. Andrews v. Beach, 155 Minn. 33; and Godward v. City of Minneapolis, 190 Minn. 51, which assume the constitutionality of submitting such a proposed charter amendment as is here involved at a general state election held in November of even-numbered years within six months of the delivery of such amendment to the chief magistrate of the city. It is, therefore, my opinion that the submission of the proposed amend- ment in question at the November 2, 1948, election would be valid, and, under the decision in Godward v. City of Minneapolis, above cited, the charter amendment would be considered approved if three-fifths of those voting thereon voted in favor of its acceptance. fro~ deli of ~ reel As but has holi the mgg reqt gen~ sion the ] the '] the until city 89